For whatever reason, America Unearthed has attracted more readers to this blog than any topic I’ve ever covered. The result is that I have received enormous amounts of information from people both supportive of and opposed to show host Scott Wolter. This surprises me immensely because I had no idea prior to the launch of his show in December 2012 that so many people cared so passionately about this formerly obscure man and his fringe work. Well, one of my correspondents has provided me with some interesting archival documents that shed additional light on the Tucson Artifacts, the lead crosses and other objects discussed on last Friday’s episode. As I pointed out at the time, Wolter intentionally avoided telling viewers about the story presented in the Latin inscriptions on the artifacts. The tale of Jewish migrants to Arizona and their centuries-long occupation directly contradicted his Templar-Masonic fantasy. The new information I received proves conclusively that (a) the inscriptions are crude forgeries and (b) the objects’ caliche covering was faked.

But let’s start with the dinosaur, because at least that’s silly fun. One of the original people to look at the “dinosaur” on another of the artifacts immediately recognized it for what I identified it as yesterday, a copy of an early twentieth century reconstruction of the diplodocus. Here are the words of A. E. Douglass, the Arizona State Museum archaeologist who reviewed the find in 1925: “The distinctive mark on the sword was a representation of a long necked, long tailed, four-legged animal resembling in a striking way restorations of the Diplodocus.” Interestingly, Douglass had in his papers an early pamphlet on prehistory called “The First Story Ever Told,” and that pamphlet contained a near-identical drawing of a diplodocus. This information is included in Don Burgess’s informative article “Romans in Tucson? The Story of an Archaeological Hoax” (Journal of the Southwest 51, no. 1 [2009].” In it, Burgess also notes that the oldest date found on the lead artifacts was “560 A. D.” (with one listing 705 A. D.), which does not imply anything about when it was actually carved. But let’s look more in-depth at the Latin used in the text of the Tucson Artifacts. I wrote that the text was a mishmash of Latin from classical sources, glued together with amateur Latin so poor that even a first year Latin student would not make such errors. As it turns out, there is an even more specific source for the crappy Latin on the crosses. In the journal of the New England Antiquities Research Association 30 (1996)—hardly a skeptical source!—Marshall Payn, an engineer and a believer in some alternative history, explained that 34 (!) specific Latin phrases appearing on the crosses could be traced to a widely-used 1881 Latin primer, Latin Grammar by Albert Harknees.

Scott Wolter is familiar with the NEARA. The group commissioned him to examine artifacts in 2003. Their publications cannot be a surprise to him and should have been available in researching the artifacts for his show.

Consider the coincidence of the following sentence appearing word-for-word in both the Harknees book (1901 ed., p. 320) and the cross:

“Catilina in prima acie versari, omnia providere, multum ipse pugnare, saepe hostum ferire.” (Catiline was active in the front line, he attended to everything, fought much in person, and often smote down the enemy.)

Harknees took the sentence from Sallust’s Conspiracy of Catiline (60.4), a Classical text from c. 50 BCE of some repute, but one which it would have been nearly impossible for a functionally illiterate medieval scribe to have quoted verbatim out of context. Studies of plagiarism have determined that after six identical words the probability of accidental duplication approaches zero. Even in a language more limited in vocabulary than English, the chances of 13 identical words reproduced in a row—including the proper name!—are vanishingly small. Having it happen 34 times boggles the mind.

The most zealous advocate of the artifacts’ authenticity was Cyclone Covey, who wrote a book called Calalus (1975) about the “lost” Jewish colony based on these artifacts. Wolter has taken his argument directly from Covey, which is that the caliche on the artifacts, a precipitate of calcium carbonate, takes centuries to form so the artifacts must be genuine—which raises still more questions about why he left out the subject that fascinated Covey: the Jews. That said, when Covey was shown the Latin plagiarism, he had no response. He simply ignored it. Payne reported that a mining geologist, the late James J. Quinlan of Tucson (1924-2001), formerly of the US Geological Survey, examined the site where the artifacts were uncovered to determine how fast the caliche formed. Quinlan first identified the strata in which the objects were found. He and a team consisting of a paleontologist and an archaeologist determined that the stratum was Pleistocene, dating back between 10,000 and two million years. Therefore, the objects could not have been naturally deposited and slowly covered over by gradual accretion of soils. Payne takes up the story from here, noting that the objects were found at the site of a modern kiln:

Quinlan showed me two rock samples. The first he hacked out of the site’s caliche. It was encrusted and very hard (caliche varies from that which crumbles at the touch to that which resists a pick-axe). The second he made. He bought some quick-lime (the product made at the kiln) from a hardware store and mixed it with sandy soil, small rocks and water. He then inserted into this concoction a piece of lead and allowed it to set for a day or so. The resulting rock was quite similar to the first rock and I could not extract the piece from his newly formed “caliche.”

Since the caliche could be recreated in just hours, and the objects were found embedded in million-year-old rocks that long predated Latin, the only conclusion geology could reach is that the objects were purposely embedded into the rock using quick lime. This information was available to Cyclone Covey, who ignored it. It was also available to Scott Wolter—a geologist who worked with the NEARA!—who purposely lied about it, or else is so incompetent at his own job that he is completely unaware of it. With this information, I think it’s fair to say that the Tucson Artifacts are unequivocally fake.

It's abundantly clear that Wolter is a low-grade charlatan and knowing liar.

Someone with more time on their hands than me could take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin#Phonology

... and compare what Vulgar Latin versions of the samples should have looked like in the 6th century vs. the 1st century samples of text that were evidently copied from a school book.

If the two don't diverge that's a problem. If there are not traces of Vulgar Latin, that's a problem.

For the people who insist Wolter is on to something, if you found an email dated 2013, it had been written in Elizabethan English and 34 stitched-together Shakespeare quotes comprised a series of grammatically incorrect sentences, would that sound authentic to you?

Conversely if our scribe were such a scholar that they were writing purely Classical Latin... why the errors?!

There are people who have done the work on the Latin writing, and the letter forms used on the artifacts are those of Classical Latin, not the rounder forms of early medieval inscriptions.

Reply

Christopher Randolph

2/26/2013 05:39:40 pm

Y'know I was thinking about this earlier today while doing some mindless chores.

There could only have been two types of people acting as a scribe:

1) a highly literate priest (likely a priest) who should therefore not be making any Classical Latin errors (this is aside from the evident copied passges)

or, as I suspect the forgers/Wolter want us to believe

2) average Spaniard of the day, some literacy

The mistake I was making in my earlier thinking on this is that 2) would speak 'Vulgar Latin', but of course this isn't one Vulgar Latin, there are dozens of them which became the regional languages and dialects we know today.

A Romance language linguist could very easily reconstruct what Latin sentences would have read given a target area of what's now Spain and a time range. This historical reconstruction work has all been done via a combination of textual samples through time and application of rules we know to have applied to regional variants of Latin as it split, and is widely accepted as completely valid by linguists.

If Wolter were the least bit interested in the truth here he'd track down one of these linguists - hopefully in Spain for the free trip and per diem tapas, ham and wine - get a projected grammar and spelling of the text to match to the actual inscription. Simplicity itself for someone who cares to uncover the truth.

Don

10/21/2016 08:48:09 am

What an idiot...

dp

3/2/2013 04:04:41 am

Wikipedia is not a viable reference and should NEVER be used to prove a point. Because you used Wikipedia as a referrence I discounted everything you said following it.

Reply

Christopher Randolph

3/3/2013 04:20:37 pm

Should we take the word on that from someone using the anonymous handle "dp" and without citation..?

I'm not following your logic on that. Wikipedia has references you yourself can follow, they're even hyperlinked for the lazy skeptic. You've made a non-referenced, anonymous declaration that we should all ignore a cited article... because you say so. Irony!

Do you have any particular problem with anything in the Vulgar Latin entry? What is your position of strength in the area which allows you to make this determination? Is there anything you dispute in the logic of the ability of a Romance language scholar to reconstruct how a carving from a Spaniard from a certain time and place should read? This all strikes me as perfectly sound.

dp

3/3/2013 04:47:03 pm

Yep. The REASON Wikipedia is not a good reference is that ANYONE can simply go in and edit it. Wikipedia is one of the most untrustworthy reference sites for that very reason. As a researcher in any project, or projects that I supervise, anyone who turns in a reference to me immediatly has their work returned to them until a viable reference is cited. I don't proofread their work and research and I won't do it anywhere else.

And I never said what you said was wrong, I just won't read anything further once Wikipedia is cited.

ShojoBakunuy

4/24/2013 02:30:17 pm

Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

Additionally, even if you don't trust Wiki as a source,they do have sections called "Sources", "Resources", and "References" that link to sources to verify statements.

If you're too lazy to check the references, which are usually linked right at the statement, then you're a moron and shouldn't be taken seriously to begin with.

Wiki is becoming one of the most reliable sources for information in the world because they have people adding information all the time... And they track those that vandalize or cite nonsense and correct the information as soon as it's reported.

dp

4/24/2013 04:53:46 pm

That same ability to add information to anything is the very reason why I do not trust wikipedia to begin with. All I have to do is log into Wikipedia and edit or delete anything I want. I can change the reference, edit the content, and add any information or "facts" that I want. How many times has a well known celebrity's wiki entry been edited to show they were dead when they have not been? How do I know that an author wanting to prove a point did not just go in and edit a wiki entry just to suit thier purposes?

Yes references are posted. I like how folks say I am lazy for not checking the references of the wiki entry. You make my point for me about laziness. Is the article author not just as lazy for not providing these same references to thier article? Did the author even check those references as a source for thier article? Better yet, how about I just go into the wiki entry and delete those references? Or the entire entry? I can't edit Britanica. And if a wiki entry sources Britanica, then the author should reference to Britanica.

I hope you understand why I am saying that Wikipedia is a bad reference to ANY research.

Thank you for providing an excellent, reliable, and respected reference like the journal Nature. THAT is a good reference.

TM

8/8/2014 09:16:31 am

I have a history minor, and Wikipedia was never allowed as a credible source as anyone can add information. I too say that your claim is false. You need citation of credible sources. If you went to college, you would know that.

Shawn

5/5/2015 07:33:52 pm

The reference he provided from wiki is verifiable through multiple other sources. Scott Wolter is a Walter Mitty, Coast to Coast AM listening fraud. He's an idiot acting on rumors. Believe what you want, say what you want. It just shows your ignorance.

John Marks

10/11/2016 01:33:00 am

While I whole heartily agree that Wikipedia is not a valid source, the references sections usually are. To state that anyone can add a reference and site their own dubious source, is true but can be easily verified. The URL of the reference can be checked and verified as a legitimate agency or source. For example if I add an article or section referencing the University of Upper Podunk Archeology Dept., the URL better match. Further, researching the U of UP would show it did not exist or did not have any academic credibility. This is very easy to do.

Richard Finkelstein

1/4/2014 07:28:54 pm

This show and alas network are pure bull. Just as MSNBC might be called "the Prison Channel" one could now call H2 the "Aliens Did it (with their colleagues The Nights Templars) Channel". The obvious proof to me here was the tangent into Exxon as I am familiar with the story of tat trade name from a contemporaneous account in Industrial Design Magazine from around 1968. When Standard Oil was forced to break up, they looked for a new name. first choice was from a subside racy Enco, but in Japan that means "stalled car". As the new identity had to be international they were frustrated as every word they tried had bad meanings in one culture or another. They became one of the first teams to employ a computer to help in word formulation, printing outcall pronounceable 5-letter words. The double x attracted attention as the only language with that in use was Maltese, so the name Exxon was chosen from their list. Linking the x-E's is then what graphic designers and typographers do! (I myself am a designer). So to turn Exxon into a plot by modern nights Templar is pure bull.

Reply

Huber76311

2/1/2014 01:26:31 pm

Richard, while I do agree with you on your assessment of the shows on MSNBC, H2, and such, you are only partly correct regarding the use of the name ENCO. The first use of the name ENCO appeared around 1910 or 1911. After Standard Oil was found to be a monoploy by the Supreme Court in 1911, Jersey Standard Oil was only allowed to use he name ESSO in certain states. In states where the name ESSO could not be used, Jersey Standard used the name ENCO or Humble, a company associated with Jersey Standard. You are correct about the change in 1968 and the fact ENCO was not chosen to replace all the other brand names because of the similarity to the Japanese word for "stalled car." The name Exxon did not replace the names ENCO, ESSO, and Humble until 1973. The original idea was to use the name Exon to stay with tradition or the other four letter names. Unfortunately, there was a sitting governor with the name Exon and the company did not think the association was a wise idea. I worked at an ENCO station in 1972 and 1973, when I was in high school. I remember when we all received new uniform shirts with the new Exxon logo on them, even before the ENCO signs and logos on the pumps were changed. My original ENCO shirts stayed in my closet for many years. I used them when I worked on my own cars.

Michael

11/8/2014 03:11:32 pm

WRONG, they just got proven to be real this month. The Caliche took hundreds of years to form, not hours. This guys article is an attempt to debunk the facts. Well now your debunked Jason. Also the History channel show "America Uncovered" just did an episode on it with ALL THE FACTS, including modern testing and science. They are real and date back to 800 AD. So deal with it.

Reply

bubbah

1/29/2016 11:47:51 pm

This article talks about the guy on the TV show and how it was all b.s.

John Marks

10/11/2016 01:56:40 am

@Micheal: How was it proven? Please provide a credible 3rd party reference other than the show. In other words some one the show did not hand pick. I am not necessarily doubting your statement, but I would like to examine the proof. The formation of caliche can form very quickly (a few years) under certain circumstances. This is known and proven so please post the counter argument's sources.

Tracy Smith

3/31/2015 01:05:42 am

Wow well unearthing america really had me fooled...it really annoys me with some of these fringe archeology guys trying to change history by simply choosing what facts to use in their story and dismissing truths that ultimately disprove the origin of the artifacts ...being an Australian amateur archeologist I'm wondering when did ethics and morals up and disappear ???

Reply

Shawn

5/5/2015 07:38:36 pm

One of the main bits of "evidence" this tard Wolter kept referring to was the presence of caliche and how it takes hundreds of years to form. It can form after one good rain in places like Tucson naturally. If he knew anything about Tucson he'd know that. But then again he wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for his stupid fake show.

Reply

Mitch

2/11/2019 10:18:08 pm

Thank you for the obvious amplifications. I could have sworn that Scott Wolter used this same collection in a previous program and tried it here for 2019. Other than the obvious copying from the early Latin schoolbook, was it ever established whether "A. D." was in common use in 800?

When I first stumbled upon Wolter's program a couple of years ago I marveled at his ability to compound his language in order for his conclusions to sound unequivocally correct when an expert was disagreeing. Examples are... "This positively proves beyond any doubt this possibly may have happened... "

I don't know the technical term for it but his utterances were utterly fascinating, well, possibly...

Reply

Matt Mc

2/25/2013 08:34:03 am

While a little off topic I found this website questioning Scott's work on the kensington runestone and hooked x theories. Since this looks like something we will see on the upcoming episode I thought I would share the links with you. This links leads to a series of PDF's with other geologist reviewing Wolter's claims and even in one of the PDF's claiming the Scott hid and mislead the whereabouts of one of the pieces of the stones for several years. http://www.richardnielsen.org/Discussion.html

Reply

Harold Zorger

2/25/2013 01:45:48 pm

It doesn't surprise me that this show airs after Ancient Aliens. In the intro to the show Wolter asserts that what we know about history is wrong. All through the show he uses words like: think, maybe, might, could, possible, probable. The history we are taught uses words like: did and was. I have wasted ten hours watching this show and it keeps getting worse, The Tuscon show was my last straw.

The tipping point for me was when they went off on a tangent to imply a connection between ExxonMobile and the Templars. Is there no conclusion that can't be jumped?:

I don't speak or read Latin, but I know AD means Anno Domini translated as in the year of our Lord, so grammatically it would be written AD 800. He says the inscription clearly reads 800 AD, a modern usage. A quick Wikipedia search reveals that AD was first used in 525 then became widely adopted after 800. Unlikely to be used by the Templars who weren't even around until around 1100.

Reply

Judith Kuhlman

3/24/2013 09:39:15 pm

Dufus. You can plainly see AD DCCC (Which means 800AD), on one of the actual lead crosses.

Reply

Jake

2/28/2013 05:08:14 pm

I don't think people are interested in Wolter, or believe in him and what he's doing. I do think many people believe the history we think we know may not be as accurate as we believe. There are plenty of things in this world that history has yet to explain and academia brushes to the side because they can't explain. The fact that someone is going around and trying to explain some of these things appeals to people. I think as the show goes on and it becomes less about unsolved history and more about chasing dragons and leprechauns people will begin to lose interest in it. That still doesn't resolve the unsolved mysteries of the world though.

Reply

Penrod

8/22/2013 05:35:23 pm

I have to challenge you (and by extension, Wolter) on the point you make "academia brushes to the side" things that "they can't explain". Academic inquiry does no such thing. The only fertile ground in academic research is what is either unexplained or where previous explanations are found lacking. Professional academics in both sciences and general arts make their reputation and earn their living breaking new ground in discovery and interpretation. That is what they write their theses upon and what earns them employment, tenure, and professional respect. What academia does, however, is rigorously demand that new discoveries, insights, and explanations be rigorously questioned, tested, and held to peer scrutiny, so that validity can be determined. If the work holds up, then it is accepted. How someone like Wolter can call himself a professional (does he even have genuine academic credentials, anyway?) when he goes out to a dig site, randomly bashes off some debris into a bucket, then wanders away, is utterly contemptible. There is no gridding or cataloguing of the site, no discussion of stratigraphic superpositioning, no cataloguing of samples and where they are removed from situ, no accepted form of radiological or other dating methods, etc. etc. It doesn't even occur to him that, given the amateur excavation of the 1920s, that the site should be professionally dug for further artifacts! Please give genuine professionals credit for the actual thorough and dependable way that almost all of them practice their trade.

Reply

Marsha Rice

1/7/2014 03:45:16 am

Oh, really? So, academia does not hinder truth in any way, huh? So, tell me then, where are all the giant skeletons that were found all over the US in the 19th and early 20th century? Explain why state and federal governments all over the US refuse to allow study of certain stone and petroglyphic sites. Use some common sense to realize, a. Just like today, not all writers in ancient times wrote the same nor in a "correct" manner, and b. When you are carving in rock and metal, you will most likely carve the Easiest representation to carve--not the necessarily correct one. The use of questionable linguistics to attempt to discredit artifacts solely is so unscientific as to be ridiculous. Particularly when the argument itself is based on a faulty premise, e.g. Latin Vulgate was not commonly used for written items, in fact, very few representations at all have been found globally AND Classical Latin was the common written representation. Moreover, Latin of all types was very fluid and varied regionally and temporally. Before you attempt to completely discredit anyone's work or any artifact, you really should do some real research, not on Wikipedia.

You're welcome to use my search engine to find the places where I've discussed the "giants" and the alleged Smithsonian conspiracy.

The Latin on the Tucson artifacts is unlike any Latin I've ever read, and I have studied Latin for decades. It's a pastiche of sentences taken from a nineteenth-century textbook and blatant illiteracy.

@PENROD: The only argument I am making here is about your postulation that "Academic inquiry does no such thing" (as far as brushing aside things they don't understand). A quick look at almost any 1980s - 1990s article or Television Show regarding the Giant Squid is sure to include AT LEAST two Marine Biologists/Ichthyologists stating without equivocation that no such creature exists. With about 5 exceptions, try and get ANY well known academic to seriously discuss Bigfoot, much less do any type of research. It goes on and on and on. Anything that sounds the least bit unconventional will get the IMMEDIATE BRUSHOFF from 99% of academia. A Jesuit Priest and Historian of the American Southwest Father Charles Polzer SJ, would refuse to even look at a gold or silver bar that showed any type of Jesuit Symbolism, and say it was a fraud. WHY? Because the Jesuit Order never had any wealth, so by virtue of that, it MUST be fake! No wealth? Ever been to the Jesuit Curia or the Vatican? Okay, google "rio de janeiro jesuit treasure 70,00,000"

frank

3/1/2013 05:15:18 pm

I just watched this show and was blown away by it's use of obvious deception.

Reply

CFC

3/1/2013 05:31:44 pm

Completing a literature review is such a basic step to doing proper research. The information provided in this article was readily available and was completely ignored in this episode. We have come to expect that America Unearth will teach the viewers what sloppy and inadequate research looks like. What an embarrassment this show must be, particularly for the citizens of Minnesota.

Reply

Tiny Elvis

3/24/2013 05:13:00 pm

"What an embarrassment this show must be, particularly for the citizens of Minnesota." If the folks in Minnesota vote fore Michelle Bachmann, nothing would surprise me.

Reply

Howdy

7/12/2013 12:07:59 pm

Or Al Franken...

Reply

Penrod

8/22/2013 05:41:15 pm

Very little useful discussion will be engendered by bringing political preferences into the mix. People will always argue on such things, the discussion will stray, and more heat than light will be generated. I should add though, very much with tongue in cheek, that politicians, whether left or right, are often accused of being intentionally parsimonious with the truth. Scott Wolter, therefore, should feel very much at home among such ilk.

i604

3/9/2015 10:33:36 am

OMG the Blue/Red false dichotomy. Columbus knew ehre he was heading with the three 'Caravelles'. Someone had to be there, in modern America, before the "official" discovery... Either Vikings, Phoenicians or others.

The Kensington stone is clearly a Spanish survey benchmark. The surveyors were from Sweden. They worked in the employ of the Spanish government people in Havana.

The Treaty of London 1604 laid out a subdivision of North America that could be done ONLY after some fundamental surveying was done. There was a need to establish several baselines. One obvious one is what is now the NY/PA state line ~ extended to the East to the tip of Cape Cod. That provided the border between the Acadia land claims assigned to Scotland's King James (one of Philippe II/III's cousins) and Virginia to the South. See: Spanish Hill PA for more information on that effort.

Virginia was also marked with a Southern border at what is now the VA/NC state line. South of that the territory was claimed by Spain. When the English came to Jamestown, Catalan speaking people already lived there. They did not go to Santa Fe with the Spanish company in 1509.

Another set of bench marks was set in the Appalachians to the West at the highest peaks. We know more about them than any of the others BTW.

The BIGGEST job was to set a baseline West of the Great River ~ you'll see that marked as a bunch of V's on the DesIsles Maps beginning in 1709 (two centuries later, but after the War of Spanish Sucession, the French and the Brits became very interested in what they'd acquired in the Ohio Valley.

The Spanish mapping work came to light.

The line runs from a point on the Gulf of Mexico West of the Mississippi outfall. It runs due North to Kensington. There are several points along the way of some significance The surveyors may have known of them and set the line to run through there.

The message on the Kensington stone would necessarily be written in poorly laid out rune characters (in the early 1500s the masters died in a plague which precipitated a long term disuse of rune in Sweden). These surveyors also spoke Gothic typical of the late 1500/early 1600s.

There's another line East of the River that appears to have been started using magnetic North. They realized that, stopped, and went West of the River to complete the job all the way North. Some of the surveyors named places after themselves, their liege lords, and various saints.

The Kensington stone must then be followed N by NW until it hits 54deg 40 min where it turns Due West. That sets the Western bound of the French lands in North America ~ West of that line it's Russian ~ another King Philip II/III relative involved in that.

Even the Oklahoma rune stones are on major survey lines

Reply

Jim

4/15/2014 03:12:23 am

That may be but when you make Moronic comments like that, so are you!

Reply

explorer

5/1/2013 08:34:16 am

I can tell most here didn't read the book about Bryan Cummings -- to bad because this just shows your posters and you haven't done your homework -- you all get "F's" --- you flunked --

Reply

explorer

5/1/2013 08:38:49 am

maybe I should spell his name right --- Byron Cummings -- somebody I'm sure will go off the deep end and still not read the book ---(oh well)

Reply

John Lease

7/12/2013 12:13:17 pm

This nonsense was just on TV. I immediately knew it had to be BS, the dinosaur was really just a lizard! :) Glad to see the truth is posted out here, the Knights Templar, BEFORE they were founded, hanging out in the desert of Arizona. Sheesh.

Reply

QuietObserver

9/16/2013 03:47:42 pm

Yes, it was mentioned on the show that it was most likely a depiction of a lizard...

Reply

8ball

7/12/2013 02:32:03 pm

I wondered why the content of the inscription was never discussed on the show, especially the repetition of "Israel." Now I know. Thanks.

Reply

james william crabb

7/20/2013 10:59:01 am

there are people who believe in what they see and hear ,jim jones group hittler .joseph smith and so on .God knows everythin' !and he isn' telling

Reply

Norman Smith

8/22/2013 05:09:35 pm

I became suspicious when he didn't translate the inscriptions.

Reply

Question Everything

9/16/2013 03:53:04 pm

Well I think it's refreshing to find someone out there who is willing to question what we beleive is the truth when in fact it may not be the case. I for one will not be told, I will question EVERYTHING I am made to belive is the "truth". Darwin's step by step evolution theory was proven wrong a while ago now... don't see the history books changing anytime soon though... You can be told/force fed what to beleive, or you can make your own judgement based on facts. It's up to you.

Reply

Question Everything

9/16/2013 03:59:04 pm

Ps... I am neither here nor there for Wolter. I just think the show is interesting and like that he has the balls to challenge the authorities. It's good to challenge what you have been brought up to beleive, great for the mind.

Reply

Donald Yates

11/6/2013 06:11:48 am

So I am to believe that a prankster, armed with Latin grammars, a kitchen stove and some cement, made and planted cast lead crosses and swords in an abandoned kiln site and waited until a man and his wife out for a Sunday drive in 1924 noticed one of them sticking out at a depth of six feet in an eroded bank and then all the other objects were excavated over a period of two years in narrow trenches within a radius of thirty feet or so from the original find? Gee, how lucky was that. Or are you saying the faker worked at night or something ahead of the excavators. Maybe we should go back and look for the rest of the fakes that the Artifex must have planted to puzzle posterity.

Huber76311

2/1/2014 01:59:01 pm

Darwin's accounting of step by step evolution may have flaws. However, anyone who studied biology, paleontology, archeology, or other advanced sciences will certainly understand the concept of evolutionary science. And while I certainly do not want to start a firestorm of religious opinions, the Bible is in fact, just a book, written by men and translated by men. We have no actual proof of anything written in the Bible, yet millions of people believe every word to be fact. Yet, scholars and theologists will tell you, many of the stories and translations in the Bible are in fact, speculative. We have no evidence of Noah's Ark yet we are continually told to believe the great flood happened. Who is to say Albert Harknees didn't plagiarize the phrases he used in his book from other Latin texts written hundreds of years before.

Reply

Steve D.

11/10/2013 02:03:57 am

There is still nothing in this report that proves definitively at all these artifacts are fake. All you have here is speculation, opinions and a few none professionals points of view. Yes, some things appear to be strange, but you need more than just a "strange" coincidence to prove forgery!!! The fact remains that these items are still, in my opinionj the real deal. Unless you have more proof than the above mentioned, you case is weak at best!!!

That's not how arguments work. It's up to the claimant to prove that an artifact is genuine. Otherwise we'd be forced to accept the reality of everything from unicorns to alien anal probes since there is no negative evidence proving them impossible.

Reply

Ben Davis

11/21/2013 08:34:37 am

Perhaps if you have the time read the Bent account of the dig and subsequent activity at the site you might see things a bit different.

Calalus existed. A satellite settlement existed at Dogtown and relics from that site have been excavated but not understood as to their true origins. Several of their sites existed in the Superstition Mountains along with a site known as Circlestone.

Does it matter if this is believed or not? Absolutely not.

Starman

Reply

Gina

11/29/2013 04:11:32 pm

Can't they just carbon date these items. My josh, it can't be that difficult. I also don't see why it's so hard to believe that other people would have traveled to North America from across the seas. I mean really people, there is lot of proof out there that people were able to do some pretty spectacular stuff.

Carbon dating can only be done on organic objects. Metal cannot be carbon dated.

Reply

Pylarox

12/16/2016 02:19:50 pm

You can look at the "recipe " of the lead used to tell what the formula was. Crude methods of smelting ,date metals of different ages, the newer, the purer

Waybehind

1/29/2018 11:34:07 am

Just curious Jason...I am behind on this discussion. I understand your thoughts/beliefs on the caliche...but how long would it take for the other minerals, azuarite for example, to grow? Does this agree with the theory that these artifacts are fake? I am asking to understand what could be possible and what is not possible....

Gina

1/12/2014 09:18:02 am

Oh, I didn't know that. Bummer.

Reply

Laurice Tatum

11/29/2013 04:22:22 pm

Wow with such unbiased reporting and self righteousness the reader can be assured of finding out the truth. No tunnel vision on the website.

As opposed to Scott Wolter's *completely unbiased* approach to finding the "truth"?

Reply

Robert

1/5/2014 05:55:58 am

That's how it looks to me too Laurice.

Reply

Adam DeMedici

12/2/2013 05:48:06 pm

I am an avid fan of the History Channel. Although I am not convinced that everything I watch on that channel is rewriting history; I still find it intriguing enough to watch and intern - Question what we have been told is the truth. I for one, believe that modern man has walked among dinosaurs... I'm pretty sure my ex girlfriend was a velociraptor!

Reply

desert lily

1/4/2014 03:26:39 pm

Questioning everything leads to believing in nothing. Suspecting everything leads to paranoia. I think Scott Wolter is just bad at research and good at pronouncing judgement. The Exxon Mobil connection was ridiculous and completely extemporaneous.

Reply

desert lily

1/4/2014 03:33:28 pm

I also question his credentials. What is a forensic geologist? I would think that any reputable geologist would not just scoop dirt in a bucket and fly it off to Minnesota for testing. A good geologist should be able to identify limestone at the site, the same way a real paleontologist should be able to tell the difference between a rock and a fossil at the site.

Reply

Believer

2/1/2014 11:41:07 am

Two words: time travel

Reply

Mark

2/4/2014 02:16:00 am

Wasn't it stated in the show that the Native American People of the area were decedents of Jewish migrants to the New World..? Couldn't Mitochondrial DNA clear this up..? Just wondering...

Reply

R. U. Cretin

2/5/2014 04:36:15 pm

I have written the channel directly since this series began. I know that there are folks that want to believe some of this crap just so bad that they make allowances for what as others have correctly stated is junk science at best. If you film a show surrounding alleged artifacts with obvious writing on them and not even ONCE mention what it says, you are only fooling yourself and maybe a few unlearned people out there. Even without a scientific background, anyone with a little logic after watching this faker can just tell that he is full of what in layman terms is called CRAP! Doesn't mean that there aren't mysteries still out there to be found, but this guy literally is making this crap up just to collect a paycheck!

Reply

R l Johnston

12/24/2014 12:40:22 pm

well now, just learned that the lead was analized and the isatopes are not near the same as any in that part of the country, nearest is in southern portugal. But I still think there probably fake....

Reply

Normand

3/17/2014 10:36:27 am

I had doubts about this show...and I found this site & it brings up all my doubts about what was said.
The story holds more truth about it being fake and written up in the begining of the 20th century than the tall tale told on the show.
So the crosses were «probably» made by Templars, euh no no , they were brought over in the 1400's, euh no no they were forged by someone in Arizona, euh no, actually it was brought over by an «unknown» route, and yes the dinosaur was probably named Dino.

So disappointing, History channel could be called:
« History's, believe or not»!

Reply

Aimlee

3/20/2014 08:34:26 am

Enjoyed reading through the comments, but my question is what did all of these artifacts actually say? At one point in the show I saw what could have been Hebrew writings? Anyone else see that? I want answers!! ;)
Wolter also evaded the identity of the other names enscribed on the artifacts.
And who were these French precursors to the Templers?

The artifacts have Hebrew and Latin writing supposedly telling how a group of Jews and Gauls came to Arizona and did battle with the Toltecs. In reality, these passages are written in very poor Latin and interpolated into texts copied verbatim from a high school Latin primer, made up of quotations from various standard authors.

Among the hereditary Templars, we can trace the origin of the Calalus people to Septimania and Scotland. Both are distant cousins of the line of King David and both used Latin and Greek as a second language. If you ever taught ESL as I have, you get no pattern of translation from ESL students. The fact they appeare to model an ancient text only shows they were learners of the language used a form that was available to them and slightly modified. This is a common way of using an unknown language as done by ESL students did this all the time.

There were mixed Davidic groups that are represented in the new world circa the 5th - 12th centuries. Some using the Hebrew common to 1000 BC, others 500 BC and others in the AD era - circa 134 AD. The symbols on the crosses reveal their geographical origins.

Before the Templars, there was the legendarySwan Knights - associated weith Septiomania. They had the same mission as do the hereditary Templars of today. The Ojibwe prophecy of the 7 fires affrims this Kingdom as the 4th fire. We are now according to the Hopis transitioning to the 7th fire.

Do explain, then, how the same obscure sentence from Sallust (Conspiracy of Catiline 60.4), not widely read or widely imitated anywhere since it was not a curriculum text, appears--with the same proper name--in both the Tucson artifacts and in a Latin primer found in the public library near the site.

We are discussing a completely different culture and people group history than Europeans who had access to the Middle Eastern and Greek texts from before 1000 BC. The Nestorians (Syro-Chaldean Christians with Hebrew influence) were the primary translators of Greek texts for the Arabs under Islam with 7 colleges/hospitals located in the Sinai by the 7th century.

Roman Catholic Europe did not get access to ancient texts until the Crusades although the Hebrew Celts and Septimanians had these all though this period. The question is who copied who in this case? You assume the Calalus copied modern texts. It is just as possible European scholars copied the original texts also used by the people of Calalus. Linguisticcs alone is not a conclusive test of truth. One must consider the folklore of these people and that of the Native Americans about them. Consider the style of the crosses and its symblisms. Consider other similar artifacts that trace to a caucasioan common people inthe Americas in the 5th-11th century period also later klnown as the Anasazi. Consider the archtectrue of the pueblo builders. Thery are castles similar to those built by the Celts along with stone bee hive huts. Ogham is everywhere which is a lettering system that more Hebrew in its earliest forms. Saw marks are foundin Anasazi ruinbs as is dross left over from smelting iron buried in undisturbed Anasazi dumps. Calalus ruled over the AToltecs who are not a race but a artisan people. The Aztecs were the ones who removed the last remaining existence of this Hebrew Kingdom.

We are discussing a completely different culture and people group history than Europeans who had access to the Middle Eastern and Greek texts from before 1000 BC. The Nestorians (Syro-Chaldean Christians with Hebrew influence) were the primary translators of Greek texts for the Arabs under Islam with 7 colleges/hospitals located in the Sinai by the 7th century.

Roman Catholic Europe did not get access to ancient texts until the Crusades although the Hebrew Celts and Septimanians had these all though this period. The question is who copied who in this case? You assume the Calalus copied modern texts. It is just as possible European scholars copied the original texts also used by the people of Calalus. Linguisticcs alone is not a conclusive test of truth. One must consider the folklore of these people and that of the Native Americans about them. Consider the style of the crosses and its symblisms. Consider other similar artifacts that trace to a caucasioan common people inthe Americas in the 5th-11th century period also later klnown as the Anasazi. Consider the archtectrue of the pueblo builders. Thery are castles similar to those built by the Celts along with stone bee hive huts. Ogham is everywhere which is a lettering system that more Hebrew in its earliest forms. Saw marks are foundin Anasazi ruinbs as is dross left over from smelting iron buried in undisturbed Anasazi dumps. Calalus ruled over the AToltecs who are not a race but a artisan people. The Aztecs were the ones who removed the last remaining existence of this Hebrew Kingdom.

Reply

+David Michael

3/23/2014 03:53:23 am

We are discussing a completely different culture and people group history than Europeans who had access to the Middle Eastern and Greek texts from before 1000 BC. The Nestorians (Syro-Chaldean Christians with Hebrew influence) were the primary translators of Greek texts for the Arabs under Islam with 7 colleges/hospitals located in the Sinai by the 7th century.

Roman Catholic Europe did not get access to ancient texts until the Crusades although the Hebrew Celts and Septimanians had these all though this period. The question is who copied who in this case? You assume the Calalus copied modern texts. It is just as possible European scholars copied the original texts also used by the people of Calalus. Linguisticcs alone is not a conclusive test of truth. One must consider the folklore of these people and that of the Native Americans about them. Consider the style of the crosses and its symblisms. Consider other similar artifacts that trace to a caucasioan common people inthe Americas in the 5th-11th century period also later klnown as the Anasazi. Consider the archtectrue of the pueblo builders. Thery are castles similar to those built by the Celts along with stone bee hive huts. Ogham is everywhere which is a lettering system that more Hebrew in its earliest forms. Saw marks are foundin Anasazi ruinbs as is dross left over from smelting iron buried in undisturbed Anasazi dumps. Calalus ruled over the AToltecs who are not a race but a artisan people. The Aztecs were the ones who removed the last remaining existence of this Hebrew Kingdom.

The implements are all pretty typical of the sort of metal work undertaken during the earliest stages of Spanish occupation of the new world ~ those guys discovered far more lead and copper than they did silver and gold. Their mines are everywhere.

The cross of lorraine suggests someone from the family of Rene d'Anjou ~ and if you haven't found that guy yet, note that he was the Grandfather of Henry VIII (and a whole bunch of other people). Some of the earliest missionaries in the Americas were Jesuits (they had a monopoly for a good long while) and many of them came from Catalan speaking areas.

Yeah, the Latin is funny ~ so is Catalan. Not sure Rene and his friends had pegged the spelling rules back in the day, but there you have it ~ Latin as a third or fourth language ~ should match the literacy of someone fluent in Gallo.

Some of the implements may well have been brought from Europe by early Spanish approved missionaries ~ or relatives of the great magnate families who financed and then took advantage of the discovery of America. They had their own stables of priests to draw on ~ and several times they captured the papacy itself (See Borgia), and just as often could throw up an anti-pope.

Looks like somebody found this stuff in the area, then concocted some other stuff, and tossed it in a hole and poured in the caliche. He didn't realize they were already 400 years old when he did that ~ and probably didn't care. It's like the guys who take 500 year old canvas and do a DaVinci copy ~

Reply

phil

4/12/2014 03:25:52 am

Scott Wolter loses me whenever he say "if we get the results we are looking for". I have issues with this because if he were looking for the truth then that is the result he should be looking for. A lot of what he does is "interpretation science" (there is probably a better term). Which is not to say its not useful but if the test is looking for a specific result he is much more likely to find it. His overwhelming bias makes him him completely untrustworthy. What I don't think he understands is his hypothesis' would care some more weight if everything he investigated didn't support his views.

It seems that there is just too much evidence that Europeans were here long before Columbus! Why do those that believe they know better are the loudest perpetrators of hoax theories? Could it be that they realize that they overpaid for an education? Also this Jason guys disgust for Scott overshadows any true logical answers. Instead of badgering because he has a show, get out of your house and dipo some research!
God Bless America!

Reply

jeffrey calhoun

11/9/2014 06:03:12 pm

I read this huge blog you are all great. On coast to coast a guest mentioned it. I think it a hoax. George Noorey and jon rappapkrt, ed daMes, sophia stewart, j peneda, are apparent frauds. Willfull and ancient aliens debunked on youtube good. Good luck.

Reply

joe

1/25/2015 12:40:56 pm

Wolter is kinda nutty and never open to any other opinion, gets pissed when you say your opinion, or don't accept his. BUT, another thing I believe is if you don't think people sailed here before columbus your cracked.

Reply

Sarah Erwin

3/4/2015 05:40:58 pm

When i was in school (just a brief time after dinosaurs roamed the earth, if you ask my kids), it was Columbus, and only Columbus -- he was the first. But now, with the discovery of Viking settlements in Nova Scotia, who could believe that Columbus WAS the first? Do I believe in Sott Wlter and his "search for the truth" (should that be "Truth")? No, probably not, but let's not forget that the medium and the show are entertainment. Interesting discussion, whatever you believe!!0

Reply

Tom B

6/2/2015 12:04:49 pm

Reply

Tom B

6/2/2015 12:11:16 pm

You can't watch Wolter for more than five minutes and maintain the fantasy that anything he says is unbiased or not deliberately slanted to sound wildly interesting and mysterious on tv. To hear him talk the entire world was invented by the Templars and has been run ever since by the Freemasons. He's a creation of TV a not a scientist.

Reply

Justin Case

1/19/2016 09:09:19 pm

It's obvious, though I didn't bother to read all the comments to find of it is mentione - this obviously involves FLYING SAUCERS! And ATLANTIS!

Reply

MOM

2/21/2016 10:58:32 am

JASON CASE!! OFF THE COMPUTER AND CLEAN YOUR ROOM YOUNG MAN!!

Reply

Dr. C.B.D.

3/8/2016 01:19:08 pm

One who uses subjective thought, to try and disprove something, only proves how desperate evolutionist are. And without so much as a blink, everyone here fell for, "dating back between 10,000 and two million years.". There is absolutely nothing here, nor anywhere that disproves the etchings.

Pityful that H2 Channel permits Mr. Wolter play such a big lie and engulf us naive viewers with that fantasy.Christopher Columbus discovered the modern America but vikings settled in Greenland in the X century CE(Christ Era) or is it AD(Anno Domine?)Swords made of lead? With the Cross of Lorraine a la Exxon logo? Bull!!

Reply

MystikalMonk305

4/8/2016 06:46:21 pm

And the Toltecs had beards because???

Reply

Michael

11/22/2016 03:26:36 pm

There's a huge difference between Jews and true Hebrews. If you haven't figured out that they're truly 180 degrees apart, you need not go any further. Stealing artifacts, stealing rare books, misdirecting religions as well as rewriting history is what jews do. They've been doing it for 2000 years or more.

Reply

Garry Fall

12/6/2016 10:58:23 am

Despite making plenty of tenuous assumptions from cherry-picked information, Scott Wolter's show is a lot of fun. Hoaxes have been going on 'for ever'. Have you ever considered that it all may be a bit 'tongue in cheek'. Heck, if I could get paid to travel and check out these sort of things I'd do it in a flash!

I've gotta start reading this Blog; it looks like an ideal excuse for some slacking.

Good on you all.

Reply

Zath

12/16/2016 06:12:36 pm

Well... I have to say I see two problems here.

I see some scientists making assumptions and saying they are fake.

I see other scientists looking at things through filtered lenses that help them see what they want to see.

I think we need to stop making assumptions and using filtered lenses on these things that do not fit within the history we understand right now. These two problems seem to exist everywhere.

Yes there are many things out there that do turn out to be fake. But also many things that cannot be declared absolutely positively as fake... In those cases I many times see assumptions are made and then we say they are fake.

To me this is a red flag when one has to make significant assumptions on something in order to determine it is a fake. That methodology is no better than the other end of the spectrum. Both are dead wrong in methodology.
Neither one really knows the truth... they have both made assumptions and formed an opinion of the truth. Neither is truly following proper scientific protocol.

I think these items should be preserved & documented as Unknowns that require further investigation when the tools necessary for that investigation are available is a better approach.

When we start discarding potentially important artifacts on "opinions" I see that as no better than those who chose to use filtered lenses to help them only see what fits their opinion.

I think data should always be used to make such determinations. If it is impossible to collect the type of data we need to determine that right now... give it 10 to 20 years... It is likely someone will have figured out how to get that data by then.

Then use science to determine whether it is fake or not.

Reply

Richard

12/17/2016 10:15:36 am

the lead crosses are a real artifact. whoever says they are not educated enough to make that call. The formation of certain minerals took hundreds of years to form. The Men that found them in 1924 were unjustly accused of faking the find and are owed a huge apology. Whats more is the fact that the knights Templar or someone tied to the Templars were here.well before Columbus.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.